Doesn't sound that insightful. "Can't live in a forest, have to live in a house." Can't build a house in a forest?

See, we get that it's possible to live the way people in Sudan do (even those of us who don't know the details), we'd just rather not. These fellas, on the other hand, can't even comprehend the possibility of building a house-- or other shelter-- in a forest. (Nor can they apparently comprehend the possibility of saying "**** you" to mildly racist town councils, daring the businesses to publicly and individually make clear their stance against large groups of dark-skinned folk to all their customers or ignoring the lack of store policy).

What is it they supposedly uniquely "know about civilization?"

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 4/10/2011 4:00:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:They know more about civilization than most Americans do.

How is that? If you're going by the standard that they're more friendly toward one another, well I'm sure that hunter-gatherer tribes were more friendly toward each other also, so does that mean they understand civilization better than these guys from Sudan?

At 4/10/2011 4:00:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:They know more about civilization than most Americans do.

How is that? If you're going by the standard that they're more friendly toward one another, well I'm sure that hunter-gatherer tribes were more friendly toward each other also, so does that mean they understand civilization better than these guys from Sudan?

At 4/10/2011 4:00:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:They know more about civilization than most Americans do.

How is that? If you're going by the standard that they're more friendly toward one another, well I'm sure that hunter-gatherer tribes were more friendly toward each other also, so does that mean they understand civilization better than these guys from Sudan?

Yes.

Unless they Sudanese were actually hunter-gatherer which they very well may have been.

At 4/10/2011 1:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Doesn't sound that insightful. "Can't live in a forest, have to live in a house." Can't build a house in a forest?

That actually was very inciteful, in the right context, which you failed to provide. It was in response to how ignorant we were about thinking they just sleep in a pile of leaves in the open forest because they don't have the technical skill to construct a dwelling. He wasn't trying to address Aristotle. Doesn't it have any value to you to see a different perspective? So many problems are solved not from technical diligence, but from a simple shift of vantage point. This has to do with why a scientific theory is not accepted until it is simple enough; for if it isn't simple enough, we have evidence that we are working too hard to achieve a solution that is much simpler than we making out to be.

See, we get that it's possible to live the way people in Sudan do (even those of us who don't know the details), we'd just rather not.

True, but this is indirect evidence to suggest that we do not in fact know what's best for us. To me, many things in society suggest that we have an amazing deficit of knowledge in this area, as is displayed by our spending habits (fast food, higher priced non-bulk supplies, and generally low-quality goods). I'm not saying people should be denied what they want, as I often may come off to you, I'm just saying that there are forces to manipulate what it is that we want and we can work to address the problem there.

These fellas, on the other hand, can't even comprehend the possibility of building a house-- or other shelter-- in a forest.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the video; they do live in houses. I believe you missed the point?

(Nor can they apparently comprehend the possibility of saying "**** you" to mildly racist town councils, daring the businesses to publicly and individually make clear their stance against large groups of dark-skinned folk to all their customers or ignoring the lack of store policy).

You feel so liberated taking the reigns but they don't. Are they just going to move in and start flexing their legal muscles like American capitalists? You or I would love the challenge, because we are quite accustomed, but they aren't.

My friend's mother broke her arm in a carnival ride back in the 60s, when the module she was in flew off the "scat"-like contraption she was riding. She didn't sue because "...well, no one sued in those days." There are things that are not easily measured which we are losing in great amounts, and the realness of this is only realized in rare circumstances like the video I posted. Private property is forcing us to lose our civil rights in so many ways. Our civil rights are not stolen by government they are stolen by our culture. I would also add that crime is more of a function of private property than it is anything else. 11 Sudanese men in a gas station to them just means 11 men in a gas station; to us it means a potential loss of ability to protect private property. Now sure, these guys could hire a high-powered lawyer and turn that little town into a media frenzy, and have liberal media and state officials so far up everyone's a55 that ever bothered them that the town would regret it. But that's not what they had in mind when they traveled to America.

What is it they supposedly uniquely "know about civilization?"

Nothing. This isn't a function of knowledge/wisdom/intelligence, it's a function of perspective. A child from their country could morally outfox an elder from America, in certain social aspects. This is shameful and I don't say this lightly because I like to think I have a deep respect for people with great experience - a respect that on DDO is sort of definitionally moot (you're all young and who is going to tell you that you need to wait to be right?).

Why would you assume America has the superior cultural setup? Wouldn't we logically want to look at the world as a whole and take the ecclectic? This, to me anyway, is a pretty strong sign we have something to learn. The only obstacle is pride.

At 4/10/2011 1:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Doesn't sound that insightful. "Can't live in a forest, have to live in a house." Can't build a house in a forest?

That actually was very inciteful, in the right context, which you failed to provide. It was in response to how ignorant we were about thinking they just sleep in a pile of leaves in the open forest because they don't have the technical skill to construct a dwelling. He wasn't trying to address Aristotle.

What did I say about Aristotle?

Doesn't it have any value to you to see a different perspective?

Not as such.

So many problems are solved not from technical diligence, but from a simple shift of vantage point.

Such as?

This has to do with why a scientific theory is not accepted until it is simple enough; for if it isn't simple enough, we have evidence that we are working too hard to achieve a solution that is much simpler than we making out to be.

That's a rule of thumb in some loose philosophy, not a hard enough rule for science.

True, but this is indirect evidence to suggest that we do not in fact know what's best for us.

How so?

To me, many things in society suggest that we have an amazing deficit of knowledge in this area, as is displayed by our spending habits (fast food, higher priced non-bulk supplies, and generally low-quality goods)

As opposed to food priced in time and yard space, time and yard space that probably sells for more than the food you're complaining about?

I'm just saying that there are forces to manipulate what it is that we want

Forces?

and we can work to address the problem there.

By what means?

These fellas, on the other hand, can't even comprehend the possibility of building a house-- or other shelter-- in a forest.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the video; they do live in houses. I believe you missed the point?

Perhaps they misinterpreted what the people talking about forests were saying. Either way they made a logical error, one that seems likely to cost them the point you think they have ^_^.

(Nor can they apparently comprehend the possibility of saying "**** you" to mildly racist town councils, daring the businesses to publicly and individually make clear their stance against large groups of dark-skinned folk to all their customers or ignoring the lack of store policy).

You feel so liberated taking the reigns but they don't. Are they just going to move in and start flexing their legal muscles like American capitalists? You or I would love the challenge, because we are quite accustomed, but they aren't.

See, here's the problem, that has nothing to do with capitalism, or semi-capitalism. It exists in any political situation in which there are people who are used to thinking for themselves. If there's a great big group of you and none of you can at least consider that or something like it or at least go so far as to ask what the consequences are before obeying, most likely either a.-- you're ordinary boring people, without the intelligence or curiousity to have much of a perspective worth listening to, just like most people anywhere admittedly-- or b.-- you are a savage, well trained to never think for yourself. Or c, both, is always a possibility.

It's not the presence of "Law" that's the difference, it's the nature of law. The law of the US recognizes distinct actors as such. They might not all be fully respected in all the rights that implies, but if someone is going to give you an order, they'll have to make it clear that it IS an order, and it'll have to be on paper and show due process, because people are presumed not to obey your orders, whoever you are, until a reason is found. In less civilized systems, the presumption is that you have to obey-- the only protection you have from the government is if there is a law saying you may or more likely MUST disobey in some piddly little thing, if the law says nothing about it then it all comes down to respective statuses within the tribe. And their behavior here is prima facie evidence that they come from just such a savage system.

My friend's mother broke her arm in a carnival ride back in the 60s, when the module she was in flew off the "scat"-like contraption she was riding. She didn't sue because "...well, no one sued in those days."

Might a certain idea of acceptance of risk come into it? (I have no idea what a "Scat like contraption" is).

There are things that are not easily measured which we are losing in great amounts, and the realness of this is only realized in rare circumstances like the video I posted.

I saw nothing of great loss in there.

Private property is forcing us to lose our civil rights in so many ways.

That's a contradiction, as is the idea of "civil rights."

Our civil rights are not stolen by government they are stolen by our culture.

The very wording "Civil rights" is proof that the government is violating your rights. They would have no other reason to perpetuate the nonsense that rights are "Civil," i.e. subject to political whim.

I would also add that crime is more of a function of private property than it is anything else. 11 Sudanese men in a gas station to them just means 11 men in a gas station; to us it means a potential loss of ability to protect private property.

To racists, perhaps. Although I'm not sure they have much of a conception of property, and their ideas seem more analogous to what those 11 Sudanese men would likely thingk about 160 strange Sudanese men in their fields: http://www.stuff.co.nz...

What is it they supposedly uniquely "know about civilization?"

Nothing. This isn't a function of knowledge/wisdom/intelligence, it's a function of perspective. A child from their country could morally outfox an elder from America, in certain social aspects.

Such as?

This is shameful and I don't say this lightly because I like to think I have a deep respect for people with great experience - a respect that on DDO is sort of definitionally moot (you're all young and who is going to tell you that you need to wait to be right?).

It is contradictory for anyone who is not a conservative in the simple sense (pro-status quo about everything) to place a high value on "Experience" in terms of "Experience of elders" (as opposed to "Job experience" or whatever.) You see, it's the most experienced people who f***ed it all up if you're any sort of honest radical ^_^.

Why would you assume America has the superior cultural setup?

That's a conclusion. The assumptions include life expectancy is good, people not obeying stupid rules is a good sign, material goods are valuable...

Wouldn't we logically want to look at the world as a whole and take the ecclectic?

L>W&E? I'm sorry, but logically that's a single statement, not an argument. Gonna need you to pull out some premises.

This, to me anyway, is a pretty strong sign we have something to learn. The only obstacle is pride.

Without pride, there can be neither humanity nor learning. It is not humble to believe oneself capable of acquiring knowledge about the world, nor to believe oneself worthy of using that knowledge to live.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

At 4/10/2011 4:00:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:They know more about civilization than most Americans do.

How is that? If you're going by the standard that they're more friendly toward one another, well I'm sure that hunter-gatherer tribes were more friendly toward each other also, so does that mean they understand civilization better than these guys from Sudan?

Yes.

"An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

"An advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached."

At 4/10/2011 1:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Doesn't sound that insightful. "Can't live in a forest, have to live in a house." Can't build a house in a forest?

That actually was very inciteful, in the right context, which you failed to provide. It was in response to how ignorant we were about thinking they just sleep in a pile of leaves in the open forest because they don't have the technical skill to construct a dwelling. He wasn't trying to address Aristotle.

What did I say about Aristotle?

I was just poking fun that he wasn't trying to get deep with you by saying one must live in a house.

Doesn't it have any value to you to see a different perspective?

Not as such.

So many problems are solved not from technical diligence, but from a simple shift of vantage point.

Such as?

Like when you punch your friend, thinking that it feels great, and then your mommy tells you it doesn't feel great for your friend. One can get technical and try to grapple with all the causes and effects of the action, i.e., punishment, retribution, psychology etc, or one can simply change vantage points and instantly get the answer you need.

This has to do with why a scientific theory is not accepted until it is simple enough; for if it isn't simple enough, we have evidence that we are working too hard to achieve a solution that is much simpler than we making out to be.

That's a rule of thumb in some loose philosophy, not a hard enough rule for science.

Actually it's quite important to science. The simplicity of a theory, for example, will determine whether it can be considered a 'law' or not. A theory can be repeatable and accurate but it must also be simple enough to cross the threshold. For if something is too complicated, it is a good indicator that we are not looking at it the right way.

True, but this is indirect evidence to suggest that we do not in fact know what's best for us.

How so?

Because there are many different cultures all over the world, and although we could reasonably say that there are probably some things we do best, it is highly unlikely that our culture is superior in every way. So if we encounter many cultures with drastically different practices and beliefs, we can reasonably assume that there are some things that other cultures do that have us beat. Considering our rates of consumption and waste, it's safe to say there are some things we can learn from them. If you have one culture that consumes and wasted dramatically and another that doesn't, it makes sense that the one who wastes a lot is not going to just 'want' to be like the other one; even if they would actually be happier after their efforts at conservation.

To me, many things in society suggest that we have an amazing deficit of knowledge in this area, as is displayed by our spending habits (fast food, higher priced non-bulk supplies, and generally low-quality goods)

As opposed to food priced in time and yard space, time and yard space that probably sells for more than the food you're complaining about?

I don't understand your point.

I'm just saying that there are forces to manipulate what it is that we want

Forces?

Yes. Advertising is a blatant one. Businesses don't spend large amounts of money on ads without them first understanding that their manipulative forces will be significant, after all.

and we can work to address the problem there.

By what means?

Education and liberation.

These fellas, on the other hand, can't even comprehend the possibility of building a house-- or other shelter-- in a forest.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the video; they do live in houses. I believe you missed the point?

Perhaps they misinterpreted what the people talking about forests were saying. Either way they made a logical error, one that seems likely to cost them the point you think they have ^_^.

The kids thought they were brutes and assumed they slept in the forest. They don't. ...

At 4/10/2011 1:53:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Doesn't sound that insightful. "Can't live in a forest, have to live in a house." Can't build a house in a forest?

That actually was very inciteful, in the right context, which you failed to provide. It was in response to how ignorant we were about thinking they just sleep in a pile of leaves in the open forest because they don't have the technical skill to construct a dwelling. He wasn't trying to address Aristotle.

What did I say about Aristotle?

I was just poking fun that he wasn't trying to get deep with you by saying one must live in a house.

Don't claim insight and then lack thereof.

Like when you punch your friend, thinking that it feels great, and then your mommy tells you it doesn't feel great for your friend.

Irrelevant. What provides motive to change action is not telling me it doesn't feel great for friend (who cares in and of itself), but that he ceases to be friend as a result ^_^.

One can get technical and try to grapple with all the causes and effects of the action, i.e., punishment, retribution, psychology etc, or one can simply change vantage points and instantly get the answer you need.

It doesn't provide an answer. So he doesn't like it. Given nothing else, so what?

This has to do with why a scientific theory is not accepted until it is simple enough; for if it isn't simple enough, we have evidence that we are working too hard to achieve a solution that is much simpler than we making out to be.

Actually it's quite important to science. The simplicity of a theory, for example, will determine whether it can be considered a 'law' or not.

That's not "Science," though it might come up in science academia. The scientific method determines the truth value of a scientific proposition.

Because there are many different cultures all over the world, and although we could reasonably say that there are probably some things we do best, it is highly unlikely that our culture is superior in every way.

That presumes it's a mere game of chance, and that good practices are not correlated with one another.

So if we encounter many cultures with drastically different practices and beliefs, we can reasonably assume that there are some things that other cultures do that have us beat.

No we can't.

Considering our rates of consumption and waste, it's safe to say there are some things we can learn from them.

Does not follow.

If you have one culture that consumes and wasted dramatically and another that doesn't, it makes sense that the one who wastes a lot is not going to just 'want' to be like the other one; even if they would actually be happier after their efforts at conservation.

Despite the fact that living in the other one actually sucks.

To me, many things in society suggest that we have an amazing deficit of knowledge in this area, as is displayed by our spending habits (fast food, higher priced non-bulk supplies, and generally low-quality goods)

As opposed to food priced in time and yard space, time and yard space that probably sells for more than the food you're complaining about?

I don't understand your point.

If party A spends 5 minutes and 5 bucks to get a meal, making 10 bucks an hour, and party b spends 5 hours and 10 cents to get a meal, which party is better off?

I'm just saying that there are forces to manipulate what it is that we want

Forces?

Yes. Advertising is a blatant one.

Not force.

and we can work to address the problem there.

By what means?

Education and liberation.

Specific means.

Perhaps they misinterpreted what the people talking about forests were saying. Either way they made a logical error, one that seems likely to cost them the point you think they have ^_^.

The kids thought they were brutes and assumed they slept in the forest.

I'm just gonna ask you two things.1. Are you psychic?2. If so, can you demonstrate it?

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.